Thursday, May 08, 2014

You all have to know the hammer analogy was made aware to me about a week before this debate took place. Also, a YouTube label given to this demonstration was posted under "gaming" so I find that kind of funny given the seriousness of this debate.

I pushed Number 1. But, you also know my bias right so I did not think providing this image would hurt in an way given that you already have some insight into my perspective? My opinion at Sean's Blog as well pertaining to this subject.

So as I am going through the debate I thought it necessary to keep a running tab for my self so as to see from what position one is speaking. So now that I know Sean is speaking from a Naturalist point of view. I will continue.

A metaphysics that goes beyond the commitments of science is simply unsupported by the best available evidence.[27]

—Lynne Rudder Baker, Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of
science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It
is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe
to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence
the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the
naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also
to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical
method.

Okay I am at 36:58 of the video so I have had the opportunity to listen to the four speakers. I have to say oh my gosh, there is a lot here to consider, and a lot I have already considered. So I need to respond to that first part of the video.

As life calls us to do our things in the day to day, I also have a schedule today, so this posting will be broken up in terms of my response as to the first part of the video. Please be patient. It also gives me time to think about what has been said.

I want to open with the quote Sean responded too, of Eben Alexanders of Einstein. So give me time to drawn this comment out of Eben's book.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

I am still ay 36:58 so I needed to finish what what I have surmised in that first part so I can go on with the video. Below is something that I had written to my Aunt, so hope she is okay with me repeating it here. You will see that entry below. It basically sums up the first part of the debate for me.

As I was finishing listening to Steven Novella speak, the quote of Einstein, now gotten from Eben's book, Proof of Heaven under Prologue, and response given by Sean Carroll was a matter of fact to the whole first part to me as it was for Sean to Eben's Alexanders use of the quote.

Something also interesting to me was Sean's admittance of wanting to believe (that death is not final) but at this point not being able too.That said a lot to me, and in the aspect of being a scientist, I believe what he is saying.:) So I will continue on with the rest of the video now.

***

In a note to my Aunt.

Hi Aunt Celine,

I am a bit of a science buff when it comes to what is currently happening in science. I too had been reading about the NDE for quite a long time as well. Moody agrees with you, about science not quite ready. Since I have studied other aspects of consciousness research, it is my hope that one day we will understand this debate, as a recognition of who we all are as spiritual beings, in a physical body.

What Moody proposes is the beginning of a true dialogue based on logic and reason, and these stem from philosophy. So it is important to see the discussion in terms of where this dialogue can truly begin. Moody mentions pseudoscience and from that, his journey through philosophy. He is trying to set up a credible debate.

I read Eben Alexander's book as well so I knew where he was coming from, as well I have been following Sean Carroll's science for sometime now. The only one that was sort of new to me was that Steve Novella, and as a neuroscientist, I am open to what he has to say.
I must say then I am also a bit of philosopher that has had me venturing through aspect and developments about the Mind/ body debate that is going on, and that is where the science is saying that it is based on materialism. On my own, I have studied Plato and other philosophers.

In order to accept materialism one has to believe, that consciousness is derived from the brain, while the other perspective is that the brain in my view, is what consciousness uses while the body is alive, but that consciousness can exist, once our body dies. That understanding is in contradiction to what science saids today, but I am saying to science, that they indeed do not have all the facts to make this conclusion even though they can simulate experience from manipulating the physical aspects of the body to produce the near death experience.

Religion has not helped me and I must say, that my upbringing within the Catholic Church has left much for me say, about its patriarchal construct, and how it falls short of providing support for what spiritual means to me. I hope you are not offended.

I do believe in a higher power, and I do believe that Heaven is capable in all of us now. In my education, I might of called it Symmetry, in the very beginning, and science has something to say about that. While I have a real study in reductionism, the work that has been going on, I believe eventually it will lead to an understanding within science, but it has to be developed, and in my view Moody's philosophical standpoint, is where we will start.

***

So I finished the rest of the video last night. There were somethings that were quite memorable to me that stood out.I wanted to quickly move to the end of the debate where each had an opportunity as they did in the beginning to give their last assessment as to why Death is Final, or not.

I was more focused on Sean's response and reiteration of respect for people and their beliefs. This was important to me. When Moody spoke of the work that he had been doing for the last forty years with regard to NDEs and the listening to people about these experiences, these were genuine stories of, "Death was not Final" for Moody. I was encouraged by the votes last night, not for which side supposedly won, but by the uncertainty(final 12%) as to the question of what remains as a definitive, as to Death is Final. These shows to me that people in the end still do not know, and that, they could not be decisive. This to me, leaves room for work to be done.

I also liked Sean Carroll's response too, the responsibility of acceptance as to how one may look at life given the perspective of responsibility he has having accepted his position on Death is Final. Of course he might used, when he was a child, as one might use as Moody did, as was his thrust to understand astronomy.

I believe this to be sincere, and such a question about death that would come to all in the child's mind, a determiner of what the future would bring for him as he sat on that panel. Not so much as a Skeptic full blooded, so as to be glib with the response of, as if Steve Novella was the amazing Randi and waited for the bet that has not been collected. :) But to remain open, as the undecided results spoke toward, as if, more information would be needed to make a final definitive statement.

So anyway, another moment stood out in regard to Sean Carroll's response to a woman about where the energy goes once we die. His analogy of a flame going out was like the hammer statement used above, as used in the repertoire of such a question about energy and death. What I liked about the response, was as to where it put the woman in mind. If you have ever come to the point of a logical constructive immobilizing one's position, as it was on the face this woman wore, as to where the woman could go next. That final deductive state is an important one to me.

I have much more to say about reductionism and how that research is important to me as if the table would be permanent as the atom that make it up, would be a table ad infinitive. So as sure as, matter in all it's constitutions have been described, as to say I am pointing right a it?:) We are not objects like the table. The analogy of the narrative is always important as it is spoken, and as subjective and alone as it might seem there is the greater picture of the story of the NDEr.

I must say too, that the idea of reductionism as much as materialism, causes flinches in those who speak about spiritual things, would make one from that side speak about what is not reducible? Since energy is an important topic and how we use configuration space to surmise it's existence, it becomes a classification of matter. I would assume there is much still to be ascertained. I read the blogs of other scientists who are at the front with questions phenomenologically expressed that want to see where the science goes next. Just as we have been taken t the limits of where the identification of the Higg's operates and what that energy range is.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Of course I am always drawn toward the reason for why the universe does certain things and I greatly appreciate how a scientist might explain this to me in the most simplest form, which leaves no doubts. But I do not think they can do that without explaining the basis of the reasoning but through symbolic representation in the form of an approximate.

Scientists strive to discover simple rules which underlie complex natural phenomena.
For example, when making a model of some complex object a scientist may make
some pretty extreme assumptions. For example, when asked to find the force of
gravity produced by a complicated object like a galaxy, astronomers will usually
start by assuming that it acts like a sphere, which in this and many other cases
allows one to make approximate first solutions to complicated problems.

This tendancy to simplify gave rise to the joke of a science professor who
begins a lecture, "Consider a spherical cow..." Since Wisconsin is well known
to have a large population of dairy cows, it is not too surprising that the
University of Wisconsin astronomers and astrophyscists selected this picture
of a spherical cow made by Ingrid Kallick as their symbol for a recent national
meeting of astronomers in Madison.
Hubble
Heritage Gallery Page

So herein lies the framework with which I had already envisioned so that I may understand the evolution of the Supernova as to ascertain what drove it to become what it is today in the universe.That evolution leaves it's tale in the history of our universe, and together, with other local regions to me are contributors to what said the universe must expand all together in it's own way.

There’s absolutely no reason why a non-scientist shouldn’t be able to
follow why dark energy makes the universe accelerate, given just a bit
of willingness to think about it. Dark energy is persistent, which
imparts a constant impulse to the expansion of the universe, which makes
galaxies accelerate away. See: Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate?

So the issuance of a contributor would make it so much easier to suggest that what we do not see in the form of dark energy, yet, can be explained particle wise as to suggest it operates within a certain parameter of energies? For any continued expansion to exist, the derivative of that evolution spherically approximated too should be described by some correlation? To suggest the fluid nature is calming to me.:)

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

As a layman I have been going through the research of those better educated then I in order to construct a accurate syntactically written developed scientific process as I have become aware of it. This is what I have been doing for the last number of years so as to get some idea of the scientific process experimentally driven to this point.

Theoretical development is important to myself, as well as, the underlying quest for a foundational perspective of how we can push back perspective with regard to the timeline of the universe in expression.

This has to be experimentally written in the processes we now use to help formulate an understanding of how the universe came into being by examining local events with the distribution of the cosmological data we are accumulating. A Spherical Cow anyone?

I do appreciate all those scientist who have been giving their time to educating the public. This is a big thank you for that devotion to the ideal of bringing society forward as to what we as a public are not privy too. As too, being not part of that 3% of the population who are far removed from the work being done in particle research.

Almost a year ago, I had an e-mail exchange, and planned a phone call, with Maria Spiropulu of CMS. She looked particularly excited about something and the mortals may be learning what the cause was today.

CMS turned out to be much more "aggressive" relatively to the "conservative" ATLAS detector and it has already provided us with some hints. But what they published today, in the paper called: See:CMS: a very large excess of diphotons

The integrated and differential cross sections for the production of pairs of isolated photons is measured in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7 TeV with the CMS detector at the LHC. A data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36 inverse picobarns is analysed. A next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD calculation is compared to the measurements. A discrepancy is observed for regions of the phase space where the two photons have an azimuthal angle difference, Delta(phi), less than approximately 2.8.

***

Tscan

Tscan ("Trivial Scanner") is an event display, traditionally called a scanner, which I developed. It is a program that shows events graphically on the computer screen.

It was designed to be simple ("trivial") internally, and to have a simple user interface. A lot of importance was given to giving the user a large choice of options to display events in many different ways.

Tscan proved to be a very useful tool for the development of fitters. A particularly useful feature is the ability to show custom data for every photpmultiplier tube (PMT). Instead of the usual time and charge, it can show expected charge, scattered light, likelihood, chi-squared difference, patches, and any other data that can be prepared in a text format.

Multiple rings of Cerenkov light brighten up this display of an event found in the Super-Kamiokande - neutrino detector in Japan. The pattern of rings - produced when electrically charged particles travel faster through the water in the detector than light does - is similar to the result if a proton had decayed into a positron and a neutral pion. The pion would decay immediately to two gamma-ray photons that would produce fuzzy rings, while the positron would shoot off in the opposite direction to produce a clearer ring. Such kinds of decay have been predicted by "grand unified theories" that link three of nature's fundamental forces - the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. However, there is so far no evidence for such decays; this event, for example, did not stand up to closer scrutiny.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Wegener proposed that the continents floated somewhat like icebergs in water. Wegener also noted that the continents move up and down to maintain equilibrium in a process called isostasy.Alfred Wegener

Just thought I would add this for consideration. Grace satellite does a wonderful job of discerning this feature? Amalgamating differing perspectives allows one to encapsulate a larger view on the reality of Earth. More then the sphere. More then, what Joseph Campbell describes:

The Power of Myth With Bill Moyers, by Joseph Campbell , Introduction that Bill Moyers writes,

"Campbell was no pessimist. He believed there is a "point of wisdom beyond the conflicts of illusion and truth by which lives can be put back together again." Finding it is the "prime question of the time." In his final years he was striving for a new synthesis of science and spirit. "The shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric world view," he wrote after the astronauts touched the moon, "seemed to have removed man from the center-and the center seemed so important...

While one can indeed approximate according to the spherical cow, in terms of events in the cosmos, I was being more specific when it comes to demonstrating a geometrical feature of the sphere in terms of the geometry of the Centroid. This feature is embedded in the validation of the sphere in regard to gravity?

It was important to see how such planets form and given their "Mass and densities" which I thought to show how such a valuation could be seen in relation to the variance of gravity so it is understood.

Isostasy (Greek isos = "equal", stásis = "standstill") is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density. This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth's surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy is not a process that upsets equilibrium, but rather one which restores it (a negative feedback). It is generally accepted that the earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways, however isostasy provides an important 'view' of the processes that are actually happening. Nevertheless, certain areas (such as the Himalayas) are not in isostatic equilibrium, which has forced researchers to identify other reasons to explain their topographic heights (in the case of the Himalayas, by proposing that their elevation is being "propped-up" by the force of the impacting Indian plate).

In the simplest example, isostasy is the principle of buoyancy observed by Archimedes in his bath, where he saw that when an object was immersed, an amount of water equal in volume to that of the object was displaced. On a geological scale, isostasy can be observed where the Earth's strong lithosphere exerts stress on the weaker asthenosphere which, over geological time flows laterally such that the load of the lithosphere is accommodated by height adjustments.

***

Such strength variances can be attributed to the height with which this measure is taken(time clocks and such) and such a validation in terms of Inverse Square Law goes to help to identify this strength and weakness, according to the nature of the mass and density of the planet.

As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the gravity field can be put in the form shown below, showing that the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field.

It is important then such a measure of the energy needed in which to overcome the pull of the earth, then was assigned it's energy value so such calculations are then validated in the escape velocity. There are other ways in which to measure spots in space when holding a bulk view of the reality in regards to gravity concentrations and it locations.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

As a layman I find this of particular importance when we send our vision out amongst the stars, all the while looking at the substance of these events "within the larger context of the universe." While each particular event is revealed through Chandra's catalogued linked below it helps me to see them within that universe as well as think of them in terms of "this singular event" as shown in the Crab Nebula.

Credit: NASA/CXC/SAO/F.Seward et al

This image gives the first clear view of the faint boundary of the Crab Nebula's X-ray-emitting pulsar wind nebula. The nebula is powered by a rapidly rotating, highly magnetized neutron star, or pulsar (white dot near the center). The combination of rapid rotating and strong magnetic field generates an intense electromagnetic field that creates jets of matter and anti-matter moving away from the north and south poles of the pulsar, and an intense wind flowing out in the equatorial direction.

The inner X-ray ring is thought to be a shock wave that marks the boundary between the surrounding nebula and the flow of matter and antimatter particles from the pulsar. Energetic electrons and positrons (antielectrons) move outward from this ring to brighten the outer ring and produce an extended X-ray glow.

The fingers, loops, and bays in the image all indicate that the magnetic field of the nebula and filaments of cooler matter are controlling the motion of the electrons and positrons. The particles can move rapidly along the magnetic field and travel several light years before radiating away their energy. In contrast, they move much more slowly perpendicular to the magnetic field, and travel only a short distance before losing their energy.

This effect can explain the long, thin, fingers and loops, as well as the sharp boundaries of the bays. The conspicuous dark bays on the lower right and left are likely due to the effects of a toroidal magnetic field that is a relic of the progenitor star.

Now of course, when I read on how the astronomers approximate, it was as if I was watching it from a view, and all of this is on stage. What was in my thinking before this is what I had done naturally anyway, since such regions of the universe has these places as part of the larger context. How they contribute to the universe at large, just seem to be part of the geometrical evolution of the event for me and was part of the effort to explain in this geometrical unfolding.

Thusly, the impetus for information of these events were part of the motivation factors that are driven. It left to us to see "the nature of these places," in our universe which allowed us a portrayal of the elements in a dissipative and degenerative energy expenditure, as fore tellings of a further geometrical inclination.

The idea here then is that gravity does not emerge from the "substance of the neutrinos," but happens much earlier. It happens with the "geometrical inclination within the confines of the universe." If, the total universe is an expression of the same geometrical inclination as an event, then, "every event that happens within universe," either contributes to the inflationary aspect, or, it does not. If the numbers of events "exceed the universe" then those events contribute to a "speeding up" that can occur?

It is "the geometrical action itself" that presents the gravity waves to our location here on earth. It is not to be thought of as earth as any central sun located but an object placed or event, that sits in the universe, and can measure the gravitational waves as they pass these locations.

Other Images of X-ray sources that allow us to ponder the nature of expression "in the approximate" using the Spherical Cow in relation.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

BEHOLDING beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities, for he has hold not of an image but of a reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life? Plato

I came across this information after visiting "The Quantum Diaries Survivors," blog by Dorigo. Hmmmm....my comment 23 there should read August 27 as posted and it's reads Aug 28. It would not make sense if this post was made on the 27 and I commented on the 28th, unless one thought I purposely changed the date, which I didn't.:)I wonder if one edits the post from an "admin status" if this is what happens? Anyway, on to the rest of the post here.

Astronomers wrapped the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope's first all-sky map over a sphere to produce this view of the gamma-ray universe. Credit: NASA/DOE/International LAT Team

The article seems most appropriate in context of my other post on "Spherical Cows" this day, as a way in which to interpret calorimetric evidence in the form of motivated Gamma Rays. Dorigo's earlier link on the "calorimetric description in LHC is crucial in my view to what the gamma ray is doing out there in space with regard to the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope.

NASA's newest observatory, the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope, or GLAST, has begun its mission of exploring the universe in high-energy gamma rays. The spacecraft and its revolutionary instruments passed their orbital checkout with flying colors.

NASA announced August 26 that GLAST has been renamed the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The new name honors Prof. Enrico Fermi (1901-1954), a pioneer in high-energy physics.

This close-up shows the Vela pulsar, which beams radiation every 89 milliseconds as it spins. The pulses are shown slowed by 20 times. Credit: NASA/DOE/International LAT Team

If one is keen enough, one might come across an interesting reference to the "Lighthouse" in this blog. Such rotations and the effect of the jet, has an interesting effect on the eye in analogy when the light shines very brightly for the briefest of seconds. IN this same way, the energy valuations from this brightness, is of some importance I suspect. Not just in blinding oneself when one sees this ray of light, but as it manifests in M87 as well in relation to this measure.

When scientists refer to a spherical cow, we are poking fun at ourselves. We are admitting that some of our models or descriptions of things are far more simple than the actual object, like to say that a cow has a spherical shape. The phenomena we study are often complex, and including too many details can hinder, rather than help our understanding. Often it is useful to study a simplified model which contains only the most important general characteristics. Such a model can be more easily studied using numerical or analytical methods and then compared to observations.

As an example of this kind of thinking, say we were aliens trying to understand "humans", a strange race of beings recently discovered on a small planet orbiting a medium-sized star. We might divide them into two groups, one which grows facial hair (men), one which does not (women). Within each group there is a lot of variety - each human in the first group group can have facial hair in a wide range of colors and textures, for example. However, we think that there is some underlying reason for the gross characteristic of having or not having facial hair. We might then make more observations to try and understand why this is so. These further observations might uncover more similarities (humans in the first group have both an X and a Y chromosome while humans in the second group have two X shaped chromosomes) that are more fundamental. In astronomy we try to do the same thing.

Now of course you must know the reason for this article and the subsequent explanation for it. I do expand this article to show some of the current understanding I have as I do my own research, and find how scientific measure is being attributed to our new views of the cosmos as observers. The measure now being reduced to computerizations.

Now I came across this article at Cosmic Variance by reading a blog posting written by Mark.

Now from my perspective as I see often at Cosmic Variance "this method used" not only by Mark, but Sean Carroll as well. It is a sort of poking fun at the news article that was written. Ones I am starting to become familiar with, as I read my local paper. The information from a science perspective is being generated to the public.

Should I become a cynic? Should I blur the lines on scientific method? Hold the scientific method against someone with a religious background, other then a humanistic one, and a sceptic to boot? Naw! I shall not be that way, and the way some others in science deal with each other. I shall respect who they are ,for who they are.:)Not my place to judge them.

Now, is the technique used by these researches in the New Scientist article sound in it's evaluation? I leave that up to you to decide and continue from the perspective I wish to share on my blog.

It captures my attention for this reason, and another, which is a trait I myself seemed to fall under. This is in terms of geometrical recognition, as the bubble, circle, whatever your fancy, to illustrate the supernova's action and it's remnants distributed into space. I have such examples to illustrate as one tries to marry the theorists to the science in a phenomenological way.

See:Central Theme is the Sun as a related posting and subsequent comment for further elucidation of how we now see in space.

Generally the SNR looks different "in each of these different wavelengths", just like you and I look different to another human being (who looks at the visible light) then we do to a bee or a snake (who are able to detect ultraviolet and infrared light, respectively).

I am not sure if this is the same with regard to the Glast perspective that is opening up our "new window of the Universe?"

JoAnne sometime ago showed this in relation to the computerize methods used to chart measures on how we may now see the sun for example, in Gamma ray. The "Tscan method" was used in regard to Neutrino research.

Just so you know at what scale most certain.

It is important that the chosen highlighted paragraph written in that comment section and repeated here, be seen in this light, and compared to computerize models attained from our methods of measure.

While the idea here,I am moving away from the spherical cow, by recognizing the way in which observers now see the cosmos as we implement our methods of measure using computerized techniques.

Tscan

Tscan ("Trivial Scanner") is an event display, traditionally called a scanner, which I developed. It is a program that shows events graphically on the computer screen.

It was designed to be simple ("trivial") internally, and to have a simple user interface. A lot of importance was given to giving the user a large choice of options to display events in many different ways.

Tscan proved to be a very useful tool for the development of fitters. A particularly useful feature is the ability to show custom data for every photpmultiplier tube (PMT). Instead of the usual time and charge, it can show expected charge, scattered light, likelihood, chi-squared difference, patches, and any other data that can be prepared in a text format.

Multiple rings of Cerenkov light brighten up this display of an event found in the Super-Kamiokande - neutrino detector in Japan. The pattern of rings - produced when electrically charged particles travel faster through the water in the detector than light does - is similar to the result if a proton had decayed into a positron and a neutral pion. The pion would decay immediately to two gamma-ray photons that would produce fuzzy rings, while the positron would shoot off in the opposite direction to produce a clearer ring. Such kinds of decay have been predicted by "grand unified theories" that link three of nature's fundamental forces - the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. However, there is so far no evidence for such decays; this event, for example, did not stand up to closer scrutiny.

Geometrical expression as I have come to understand is my own unique way in which geometrical expression is thought of, and I gave examples here of a discredited person and their research in regards to sonoluminescence, as an example of this feature to map the SNR explosive values. It is only by analogy which I give this relation to help one see this expression in the vacuum of space, as well as leading evolutions in regard to an example of M87 in it's is unfolding.

The Lighthouse example can be seen here as well, and in this relation Glast measures would help to serve us to see this "new window of the universe" in the way it measures and compartmenting the computerized charting as we observe from this new perspective.